WTC OPEN 2020 - World Team Championships - official T9A event

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • YeahGucciFrisur wrote:

      Semi-serious question:

      Why are the Polish so good? If you had to describe, what they do differently, what would be the biggest factor?
      I think I posted something similar last year, but I claim it comes down to several things:
      (A) Great depth in the scene: makes it easier for top players to stay sharp, and weaker players to be brought up to their level.
      (B) Gaming culture: they care, more than many countries do, and put serious work in as a result.
      (*) I have a hunch, that I have never had chance to investigate in detail, that Poland was affected less by the great schism than other countries.

      E.g. The UK scene had peak depth around 2013/2014, where we could have sent two 8-man teams to ETC who would have come top 10 at least, each with non-negligible chance of podium. But the great schism took all of the depth out of our scene, so even the remaining top players have atrophied a bit since then, since they aren't challenged enough. This story is repeated across a lot of the top teams. It is a difficult and slow process to build this depth back up.


      I would love to see a charity event that was something like 3 polish teams and 3 rest-of-the-world/challenger teams.
      Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
      Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE

      The post was edited 1 time, last by DanT ().

    • DanT wrote:

      YeahGucciFrisur wrote:

      Semi-serious question:

      Why are the Polish so good? If you had to describe, what they do differently, what would be the biggest factor?
      I think I posted something similar last year, but I claim it comes down to several things:(A) Great depth in the scene: makes it easier for top players to stay sharp, and weaker players to be brought up to their level.
      (B) Gaming culture: they care, more than many countries do, and put serious work in as a result.
      (*) I have a hunch, that I have never had chance to ask about, that Poland was affected less by the great schism than other countries.

      E.g. The UK scene had peak depth around 2013/2014, where we could have sent two 8-man teams to ETC who would have come top 10 at least, each with non-negligible chance of podium. But the great schism took all of the depth out of our scene, so even the remaining top players have atrophied a bit since then, since they aren't challenged enough. This story is repeated across a lot of the top teams. It is a difficult and slow process to build this depth back up.


      I would love to see a charity event that was something like 3 polish teams and 3 rest-of-the-world/challenger teams.
      Poland Vs the World would be a very interesting series
      Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
    • Adam wrote:

      @DanT you could also add that in Poland people generally do not whine about people doing legal albeit strange moves (like congas) and about stuff being OP.
      I don't think the congas point is relevant when comparing top players between countries; certainly not in my experience.

      And as for whining about stuff being OP/UP... there are members of those podiuming Polish teams who whine on this very forum, so I cannot agree with this.
      But certainly agree there is an attitude of accept that something is OP, and work out how to leverage it and beat it.
      Indeed, I believe that the Polish ETC team has set traps in the past for armies that were the new hotness. This requires a level of coherence, co-ordination and understanding across an 8-man team that most countries can't match.
      Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
      Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
    • I would like to thank the whole Purple Team for organizing the event, it was one of the best tournaments I have attended! I hope I will be on the next WTC and regret I wasn't on the previous one. Nice food (nutella for breakfast FTW :D ) , place to sleep in the gym, keeping the schedule. You guys are doing a really good job!

      Also big thanks for all my opponents. I had 5 challenging games against great players, all played in a nice, friendly atmosphere. I am looking forward to see you next year in Herford, or maybe earlier at some other tournament :)

      And when it comes to my Team, you guys were amazing! Thank you for taking my worst match-ups away from me, even at the cost of your own personal scores. I know you had a lot of hard and difficult games because of that, fighting the uphill battles. This is a real teamplay, I am happy that I could play along your side!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Andrzej ().

    • Congratulations to Poland for winning both tournaments, especially to @Andrzej. :party:

      With match ups being a tactical element, one army can never be OP. It requires a tool box with good tools to adapt.

      Many thanks to the organisation and volunteers for making this great event happen in a smooth way at a great venue.
      :homeage:
    • Krokz wrote:

      Little Joe wrote:

      With match ups being a tactical element, one army can never be OP. It requires a tool box with good tools to adapt.
      Army is a tool in itself. If best teams choose to bring one army over any other, it means that army is better than others.
      Or it means that selection of armies together complement each other well. Or it could just be that the players are really good and they like those armies.

      Selection by itself means very little.
    • DanT wrote:

      I think I posted something similar last year, but I claim it comes down to several things:(A) Great depth in the scene: makes it easier for top players to stay sharp, and weaker players to be brought up to their level.
      (B) Gaming culture: they care, more than many countries do, and put serious work in as a result.
      (*) I have a hunch, that I have never had chance to investigate in detail, that Poland was affected less by the great schism than other countries.
      Few things to add:
      -People play a lot in Poland, and most tournaments happen in rather close proximity(mostly central and southern poland), so the best players end up playing each other a lot.
      -A lot of the players here have a long history with the game, some even about 10 years back, so a lot of knowledge and experience.
      -90% of the tournaments we play are 4.5k ETC style, so people know this format well(the only exceptions are a few local small points tournaments and 2 masters).
      -Since most top players play each other a lot they know each other very well and keep in touch, so lists are more of a colaboration then a solo effort.
      -and finally, vodka and beer :P
    • DanT wrote:

      I have a hunch, that I have never had chance to investigate in detail, that Poland was affected less by the great schism than other countries.
      I would say that Poland lost about a third of a players because of the schism, and some of those returned after a while. On top of that most of top/veteran players stayed with the game, so you are probably right.
    • Squigkikka wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      Most importantly, those standard deviations are ~15-20 for most armies. With the averages (for 5 games) clustered between 41 and 56, that means it's not enough data to say anything about any army. Too much variation. To within the limits of the data, all armies performed the same. (And the ones with StDev ~10 are all right near 50).
      I think it's fairly feasible to say that the vast differences in performances of some armies (and their continued presence as top dogs in other tournaments) lets you make some assumptions or at the very least, serves as basis for further inspection.
      That say, the top 10 armies had 6 DL and 1 DH/1HBE means something- or that the two bottom performers on average were DH/HBE, while DL has top performance.

      I agree one tournament isn't enough to make any guaranteed calls, but... yyyyeah. Not so hot to be DH/HBE at the moment, I reckon.

      On the one hand, you'd need to compile all that data. WTC is not enough data on its own to say anything.

      On the other hand, WTC is a team tournament, which is significantly different than singles format in terms of balance. And singles is what the game is intended to be balanced for. (And that means you can't combine it with singles data productively, since they aren't measuring the same thing).

      Third, statistically, all the armies performed the same. There's literally no statistical differences between any of those armies. That means that no, you can't really use it as the basis for further inspection, because there's no signal. It's all noise.

      That 6 DL podiumed doesn't mean anything. Statistics is king.

      Squigkikka wrote:

      I can't really comment on that since I didn't see his games, know his armylist or followed their matchups- but I think it's a little bit too cautious to say:

      Squirreloid wrote:

      that means it's not enough data to say anything about any army.
      DL dominance in top 10 and average score was just a fluke, I take it? Comparing the WTC to other tournaments seems to confirm that trend (same with DH performance).

      Yes. Statistically, they're indistinguishable from all the other armies, performance-wise. You can't actually say they have the best average score, all you can say is they did the same as everyone else.

      In order to say they have the best average score, they'd need to be significantly better than other teams, and they aren't. (Significance is a technical statistics term. It basically has to do with having enough signal to say with a certain degree of confidence that two sets of data are drawn from different populations from each other. With high standard deviations, there's too much error to extract any signal - ie, that technically and explicitly means that DL's performance is better explained as random chance than any actual systemic difference between books with the data from WTC).

      Dealing with real data means we can't just use the nominal average values, we have to incorporate our uncertainty about whether those averages represents the underlying population averages. And our uncertainty is huge.

      For fun, randomly generate 'data' for 16 'armies' that played, oh, 100 games each. (0-20, randomly determined, for each game). Since it's random, you know the underlying population you're pulling from is the same for each army. See what kinds of averages you end up with. That's a fundamentally 'balanced' process, and yet they're not going to all average 10pts/game.

      (Something like T9A also has another source of "error" (statistically speaking) than just random variation, and it is even harder to account for: player skill. Doing better because you're a better player isn't a balance problem. If the distribution of player skills across armies isn't equal, it will materially affect point averages without being a balance problem).

      Squigkikka wrote:

      @IoRi78

      Absolutely! I'm just saying I think the data from WTC is valuable and not to be discarded as purely the result of random.

      @da_griech

      You should never use 1 tournament only as basis for army strength (and especially team tournies can muddle the waters). I don't think there's anything wrong with using the data gathered from the WTC tournament and compare it to other tournaments though to spot trends (ie DL overperforming and DH underperforming, for example).

      Not discarded. But not informative on its own.

      Comparing to other tournaments results is not useful. A bunch of non-results compared do not make a result.

      Pooling it with similar tournaments (other team tournaments) to get a larger data set could be useful. But not really, because it's a team tournament, and we want to balance singles play.

      Pooling singles tournaments is how you get enough data to say anything meaningful. As WTC is not a singles tournament, it's non-data for this purpose.



      MrPieChee wrote:

      I know very little about the tournament scene, but,

      The TEC results were very different from what I saw. DL were very average, despite most lists taking at least one large unit of bloat flies.

      Are TEC and WTC normally very different?

      TEC by itself is probably also not large enough to extract real data, although I haven't looked at it. But guessing it's even smaller than WTC.

      Andrzej wrote:

      Before the Rant about OP demons starts, I would like to bring into your attention 1 fact. I scored 60 out of 100 in 3 mirror matches, against other demons.
      And this looks intentional, based on your list. It looks designed specifically to wreck other DL lists, including bloat fly spam.
      Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

      Legal

      Playtester

      Chariot Command HQ

    • @Squirrelloid I will admit freely that I don't have the in-depth statistical knowledge to analyze this or offer true rebuttal, but I also feel that looking at this result and saying "This means nothing, it is purely random and a fluke and not indicative of anything" feels... wrong.

      Player skill, for example, will always make it hard to see true. So will matchups! Yet both of those are a big part of even singles tournaments, should not that then also contaminate the data to the point it's "useless"?

      I know it's dangerous to make to base big assumptions on team tournies- yet the overwhelming presence (or lack thereof) of certain armybooks in top/bottom placements seem to echo trends seen in singles.